To: Multiple recipients of list TSG-L
Bringing down the Great Wall
Contacts between Tibetan exiles and pro-democracy Chinese
Thubten Samphel, editor of Tibetan Bulletin, examines the contacts between the pro-democracy
Chinese and the Tibetan exiles and the possible implications of these for China and Tibet.
TIBETAN BULLETIN
SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 1996
China built the Great Wall to keep the barbarians out. But the barbarians kept breaking through the Wall and setting up camp in the imperial capital, some for centuries. Even the Tibetans, in their warlike days, managed to install a puppet on the imperial throne in the Tang capital of Chang'an, present-day Xian. Tibetans named their puppet Tashi. It means auspicious. Emperor Auspicious did not live up to his name. He ruled Tang China for a mere fifteen days, a flash in China's recorded 5,000 years of history. But for the dispirited Tibetans of today, they can at least say, for one brief shining moment in Tibet's history their forefathers ruled the Middle Kingdom. But the Tibetan rule by proxy of the one of the greatest empires of the day ended when a reorganized Chinese imperial army thundered back and chased the Tibetans out of the capital and beyond the Great Wall into barbarian-land again.
Besides serving as an ineffectual defence system, the Great Wall constituted China's true and effective borders. For centuries, China looked to the territory within the Great Wall as the Middle Kingdom, and that outside the wall, as a noman's land, beyond the pale of civilization and Chinese influence.
Today, encouraged by the peaceful collapse of the former Soviet Union, both barbarians and Chinese are cheerfully chipping away at the great wall of their common suffering. The barbarians are chipping away to redefine what passes for "China" and the Chinese to redefine "the mandate of heaven" from which the rulers of China traditionally received their legitimacy to rule the most populous nation on earth.
According to some observers, the common effort to bring down the "Great Wall" of totalitarian China has the potential of turning into a loose collaboration between Tibetan exiles and pro-democracy Chinese. The prospects of Tibetans and Chinese cobbling together a "united front" have dangerous implications for the old men in Beijing, said Michael van Walt, a lawyer by profession and the author of the Status of Tibet: History, Rights, and Prospects in International Law.
Given the bad habit these days of the former Soviet Union to keep breaking into ever smaller independent republics, this is one issue on which pro-democracy Chinese are putting a lot of thought. In a different context of democracy sweeping China, Haipei Xue said, "If Big Brother can change, so will smaller brother."
However, to establish their democratic credentials to the outside world, most pro-democracy Chinese do not wish to alienate their mass constituency back in China by supporting Tibetan independence.
"Many Chinese students are not for Tibetan independence," said Haipei Xue, director of the Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars, a human rights organization based in Washington, D.C.
"We definitely know how the Tibetan people feel about the status of Tibet. However, many Chinese students are not aware of the complexity of the Tibetan situation. They know nothing about Tibet."
Haipei Xue is a Tibet hand of sorts. In 1984 and 1985, he took foreign tour groups to Tibet. He said he trained Tibetans in hotel management.
On the issue of Tibetan independence, he went to great lengths to distinguish his personal feeling from that of his organization's. "My bottomline is that we should respect the choice of the Tibetan people. However, I often say, half jokingly, half seriously that I would like Tibet to remain a part of China because then the spiritual breeze blowing from the high Tibetan plateau will be good for China. We need the spiritual goodness and the moral capacity of the Dalai Lama."
Though this might be a disingenuously diplomatic comment on the status of their embattled homeland, Tibetan officials consider the frequent contacts between Tibetan exiles and pro-democracy Chinese important. "The fact that the Chinese students are pro-democracy is a positive development, potentially good for China and Tibet," said Tenzin Namgyal Tethong, a former minister of the Tibetan administration.
"Tibetan officials, members of organizations and individuals have been meeting Chinese scholars and students for a number of years," Tenzin Tethong said. This was done at the suggestion of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. "His Holiness believes that by talking and having open communications, we can not only have good understanding but the truth of the Tibetan issue will change the minds of the Chinese people," Tenzin Tethong said.
The first of these open communications was held in 1991 at New York's Columbia University. The second was held in Washington, DC in 1992. Again a smaller but much more intensive dialogue was organized by the Washington, DC-based Multi-Track Diplomacy Institute in 1994. Several rounds were held in Europe. The most recent dialogue was held in Bonn in June this year.
In history of relations marred by mutual animosity, these meetings between Tibetans and Chinese constitute a landmark in the unofficial Tibetan-Chinese dialogue. In the early 1950's Tibetan refugees streamed into central Tibet, bringing with them horror stories of Chinese communist atrocities in east and north-east Tibet. Those Tibetans in central Tibet who had never seen a Chinese communist before thought that the fleeing refugees were talking about monsters. The derogative Tibetan term for the Chinese, "gyami la-lo" - Chinese barbarians - originated since Tibet's first contacts with China, but the term has acquired greater currency since China's occupation of Tibet. In fact, through the centuries, peoples on both sides of the Great Wall have been accusing the other of being barbarians. To go beyond the mutual stereotype image and face each other across the table is a measure of how far Tibetan exiles and pro-democracy Chinese, victims of a common foe, have come in recent years to undo their tragic fate.
"Although what the Chinese students said at the conference might not be representative of the views of most Chinese students, their presence at the conference indicates that more Chinese students, especially the intellectuals, are beginning to understand the Tibetan issue. This is exciting and significant," said Tseten Wangchuk, a reporter with the Tibetan service of the Voice of America. Tseten Wangchuk was formerly a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing. Michael van Walt, the lawyer, said the fact that such conferences take place at all is a quantum leap for Tibetans. The views expressed at the meetings are representative of a growing number of Chinese intellectuals. "It's not a large number, but still, it's growing. And the significant thing," Walt stressed, "is that these views are expressed by the most important leaders, important in moral leadership."
One of the important moral leaders Walt was referring to is Fang Lizhi, China's Sakharov. Fang Lizhi gave the keynote address at the Columbia meeting in 1991. The soft-spoken, bespec-tacled astro-physicist said, "The Tibetan people should have the right to choose their own destiny."
And Chinese human rights activists look to Tibetan exiles for the creation of a more effective movement. While they more than make up for their organization's weakness by their sheer presence in the world, they have a lot to learn from Tibetan exiles in organizational effectiveness and cohesion.
Xiao Qiang, executive director of the New York-based Human Rights in China, said the frequent dialogue between Tibetans and Chinese dissidents, scholars and students would give them an opportunity to learn how to make their own organizations cohesive.
On their part, Tibetan scholars consider Chinese students of great importance. "There has always been the tradition of intellectuals being agents of social and political change in China," said Ngapo Jigme, a former China specialist at the International Campaign for Tibet, a human rights organization based in Washington, D.C.
"Zhou En-lai, Deng Xiaoping and others had studied in the West. Even Li Peng studied in the Soviet Union. Most of the top ranks of the Chinese leadership are people who had studied abroad," Ngapo Jigme said. One way or the other, the present Chinese scholars in the West will direct the course China takes in the future, Ngapo Jigme said.
There are about 80,000 Chinese students abroad, more than 50,000 in the United States. Their numbers make them a formidable intellectual force.
===========================================
Tibet and China : Brothers or Neighbours
TIBETAN BULLETIN
SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 1996
Xue Wei, the editor of Beijing Spring, examines the conditions in whihc Tibet could either seek independece from or union with a futeur democratic China
TODAY, as an exiled Chinese democracy dissident, who has experienced many hardships in the pursuit of democracy, freedom, human rights, and the rule of law, I feel extremely honoured to participate in this conference in support of Tibetan people's struggle for liberation. Furthermore, as a Chinese, every time I witness, at the United Nations Plaza, the joint protests by Chinese dissidents and Tibetan freedom fighters against visiting Chinese Communist officials, I earnestly believe that our struggle is the same. People who suffer from oppression throughout the world should all be brothers and sisters; they should not be separated by divisions of class, nationality or ethnicity. On the front line of resistance against Communist China's totalitarian rule, we and the Tibetan people are fighting allies. The Communists not only oppress the Tibetan people, they also oppress the Han people and other minorities. The sufferings of the Tibetans are also the sufferings of other nationalities inside China, though at th
e present stage, the pain of the Tibetans is more severe than others. We fully understand the sentiment and demands of the Tibetan people. We eagerly await the day when the Han and Tibetan peoples will be able to live in harmony like friends and brothers and sisters.
For the overseas democracy dissidents and Chinese students, the overwhelming majority regards the suffering and human rights struggle of the Tibetan people with sympathy and support. Although some are sceptical or hold different degrees of opposition, this does not obscure our general support for the Tibetans' struggle against tyranny. As Chinese democracy dissidents, we have to stand at the forefront of an era. First of all, we have to tell people that the urgent task at hand is to put our efforts into ending the dictatorship of the Chinese Communists, reform China's social system, realize democracy, freedom, human rights, and the rule of law. Only under such preconditions can the people have the opportunity to decide what kind of society and political system they want.
In recent years, Chinese democracy dissidents have been very concerned about the Tibetan question. From many discussions and observations, they have concluded three principles. First is the principle of democracy, which means the Tibetan people have the right to decide their own fate and way of life. The right to self-determinations is affirmed; other nationalities cannot decide for them. Second is the principle of peace, which means opposition to the use of violence as a solution to the question of separation. The army should absolutely not be used to massacre unarmed people. Third is the principle of transition. If at present there exists a great chasm on the question of separation which cannot be solved, then there can be long-term negotiations. First, allow Tibet to realize a high level of self-autonomy. After 5 to 10 years, under the conditions of harmony and mutual respect, then engage in further discussion for solutions. After everyone has experienced, over a long period, understanding and befriending
one another; and received mutual benefits, then the separatism question will no longer be so important. If such conditions exist for a long time, and the people of Tibet still want independence and feel that being neighbours is better than brothers and sisters, they can also through a plebiscite determine their own future. China's future democratic government must respect Tibet's choice.
Overseas Chinese democracy dissidents are fond of the following saying: "Without a democratic China, there can be no separation. Once China is democratic, there is no need for independence." This saying naturally has its own rationale, but I feel, whether necessary or not, only the Tibetans have the right to determine their own fate. For so many years in the past, this world was much more divided than now; and many years into the future, may be there will be a commonwealth, a global village. The unification or separation that we pursue today is only a ripple in the river of history.
The highest principle which we pursue should be what is the welfare and true will of the people and their freedom of choice. I once said, a marriage stems from mutual consent, only mutual willingness is sufficient. Divorce happens when only one side insists on its own. And a marriage without the freedom of divorce can only leave people in fear and without happiness.
This February, I visited Tibet's government-in-exile in Dharamsala, India. I met with the Dalai Lama, members of the government, and Tibetans who have fled Tibet in the past and present. What amazed me was this little town's rare virtues. They have established the world's most virtuous government. The officials all live frugal lives, making sacrifices for their religion and ideas. Many foreign friends went there to do voluntary work for the Tibetan refugees. And many Tibetans from Tibet have sent their children to attend school in Dharamsala.
One innocent little Tibetan girl asked me: "When you hear us shout China out of Tibet at protest meetings, do you get mad?" I awkwardly laughed and replied that I am not China, I am a Chinese. Actually I have a very clear understanding. The China referred to was Communist China, and the Communist officials who oppress Tibetans, and the army which has massacred the people of Tibet. The real people of China and Tibet are friends. In the future we will be good neighbours or brothers and sisters.
Lastly, I urge all just people throughout the world to give Tibetans more moral and material support. I also urge the people and democracy dissidents of China to truly be concerned, sympathetic, understanding, and supportive of the Tibetan movement for the end of slavery and the struggle for freedom.
======================================
Independence: The right of the Tibetan people
TIBETAN BULLETIN
SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 1996
Cao Chang-Ching* argues that a detailed look at the history of Tibetan-Chinese relations throws up irrefutable proof of the independent historical development of Tibet.
THE Chinese government on both sides of the Taiwan Straits hold opposing political views on most issues, often resorting to tit for tat policies and verbal attacks. On the Tibet issue, however, the two sides cling to the same viewpoint: both claim Chinese sovereignty over Tibet, emphasizing that Tibet has been a part of China since ancient times.
Over the past several decades, these official viewpoints have been instilled in the Chinese people by means of large scale propaganda campaigns waged by the Beijing and Taiwan governments. As a result of this brainwashing, the majority of the Chinese people have lost the ability to discover the truth. However, through a brief review of Chinese history, we can clearly see that Tibet was never a part of China until it was invaded and occupied by China in the 1950s.
In the Tang Dynasty, China and Tibet signed a peace treaty, clearly stating their borders and positions. During Song Dynasty, China and Tibet had almost no contact. China's claim to Tibet is based primarily on the assertion that Tibet was once ruled by the Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368). During the Yuan Dynasty, Mongolia occupied most of Asia, including China, Tibet, Vietnam, and Korea. The Mongolians established a capital on Chinese territory to rule over the conquered lands of their empire. Firstly, if such a military occupation qualifies as historical basis for ownership, it should he made by the Mongolians, not the Chinese. Furthermore, if the fact that Tibet was once ruled by China in this fashion forms a legal basis for their claim on Tibet, why have the Chinese never made the same claim on Vietnam, Korea and other parts of Asia which were annexed and ruled over by the Mongols at the same time? Clearly, it is illogical to only claim Tibetan territory.
Since China's Ming Dynasty had minimal relations with Tibet, the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) is the only other historical ground for the Chinese to demonstrate their claim to Tibet. However, unbiased history books do not substantiate this claim.
It is true that the Qing Empire had relations with Tibet. Upon the request of the Dalai Lama, the Qing military entered Tibet four times to help settle internal rebellions and to defeat external invasions. However, it is clearly groundless for the Chinese to claim ownership of Tibet because the Qing Army helped to maintain stability in the region. This is as absurd as the United States claiming rule over Kuwait just because the U.S. army helped defeat the Iraqi invaders.
Later, an "Imperial Resident in Tibet" was sent by the Qing Emperor as a special envoy to aid Tibet with administrative works. Due to their admiration for the Dalai Lama's spiritual power, the Qing Emperors intended to help strengthen Tibet. However, all regulations and statutes clearly state that the Dalai Lama and the Resident in Tibet had equal positions and seniority, and that important matters should "be solved after the consultation made by and between the Dalai Lama and the Resident." The Dalai Lama and the Qing Emperor had reciprocal seniority during that time period. If Tibet was one of the Empire's provinces, the right of the Emperor's envoy would have been greater than that of the Dalai Lama.
Several historical examples clearly demonstrate the equality of the Dalai Lama and the Qing emperor. In 1632, the Qing Emperor, Shunzhi, invited the Fifth Dalai Lama for a friendly visit to China. Upon the Dalai Lama's arrival, the Emperor himself went as far as 20 kilometers out of the capital to meet him. The Emperor would never have met a leader of his subordinate territory with such an honourable, grand rite. Historical records show that there had never been an emperor to do so, not even to meet a king of a foreign country. Furthermore, in the book, A Biography of Dalai Lama, written by Ya Hanzhang, a Chinese expert on Tibet, and published by the official Chinese publishing house, there are prints of two mural paintings depicting Emperor Shunzhi and the Fifth Dalai Lama, and Empress Dowager Ci Xi and the Thirteenth Dalai Lama sitting side by side on the throne. This friendly relationship lasted almost 260 years through the whole period of the Qing Dynasty.
After the deaths of Emperor Guangxu and Empress Dowager Ci Xi, the Qing army took over Lhasa by force and soon occupied all of Tibet. But they were driven out by Tibetans in less than three years. In 1913, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama clearly announced: "Tibet is an independent country."
During the period of the Republic of China (1911-1949), President Chang Kai-shek twice sent his special envoys to Lhasa to persuade the Tibetans to become subjects of the Republic. But the Tibetan leaders never consented. In 1990 a total of 478 correspondences between China and the Tibetan government were published in Beijing, clearly demonstrating that Tibet was an independent country during the time of the Republic of China.
The rest of Tibetan-Chinese history is simple. In 1951 the Chinese Army took over Tibet by forcing a delegation from the Tibetan government to sign the so-called "Seventeen-Article Agreement" The Tibetan government signed this treaty under duress. Later in 1959 the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government denounced the agreement.
If Tibet had always been a part of China, why did the Chinese insist on the signing on this agreement? Why haven't the similar agreement been signed with Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region and the Three Provinces in the Northeast, the then "Manchukuo"? The "Seventeen-Article Agreement" has been used to prove China's rule over Tibet since its signing. Yet this clearly demonstrates that before the Agreement, China did not have a valid claim to Tibet.
Although I was a journalist in China, I did not know the above mentioned historical facts until I came to the United States. Like my fellow Chinese, I had always thought that Tibet was a part of China. All of my knowledge concerning the Tibetan situation has been based on the official Chinese history texts, newspapers, books, and movies. It was only after coming to the USA and reading unbiased history books that I began to understand the truth about Tibet.
The Chinese should pay due heed to the reality of the situation in Tibet today. Since the Chinese occupation of Tibet, the human rights of the Tibetan people have been wantonly trampled upon. Furthermore, the Tibetan people are systematically discriminated against and persecuted by the Chinese colonialists.
*Cao Chang-Ching is a visiting fellow at Columbia University and a reporter for the biggest Chinese language newspaper in North America. In the 1980's he was a reporter for Shenzhen Economic Times, and one day he dared suggest that Deng Xiaoping was too old to hang on to power and that he should retire. Instead, Cao says, he was retired.
=================================================
THE OFFICE OF TIBET, TIBET HOUSE, 1 CULWORTH STREET
LONDON NW8 7AF, UNITED KINGDOM
The Office of Tibet is the official agency of His Holiness the Dalai Lama
Tel: 0044-171-722 5378 Fax: 0044-171-722 0362
E-mail: tibetlondon@gn.apc.org
Internet: http://www.gn.apc.org/tibetlondon/
==================================================
